Promises, promises

    New Labour set itself ambitious targets as part of its pledge
    to reduce the inequalities in society and put an end to social
    exclusion. Here, Rachel Downey examines how successful it has been
    so far, while Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokespeople put
    forward their solutions.

    If success was measured by filtering new expressions into the
    nation’s subconscious then New Labour could take the credit for a
    great job on social inclusion. Just four years on, it is hard to
    remember a time when the phrase “social inclusion” did not exist.
    But the success of a government is measured by how it has lived up
    to its pledges and one of the party’s main aims was to diminish the
    marginalisation of many in society and to reduce the inequalities
    in life chances. So how has it done?

    A recent report from the social exclusion unit outlined the
    government’s programme to date. It is an exhausting list of action,
    which ranges from the importance of sport and culture in helping
    those vulnerable to social exclusion, to the introduction of the
    minimum income guarantee for those relying on the state pension.
    From new decency targets for social housing to the development of a
    rural service standard setting out what people expect from public
    services in rural areas. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 is
    included, along with a range of new programmes tackling drugs,
    youth offending, and neighbourhood renewal.

    The vast majority of the targets to measure success are set for
    the future. Despite its theoretical short-term lifespan, the SEU
    and government make no secret of the fact that this is a medium- to
    long-term project.

    However, of the very few targets set for the unit’s first three
    years, the results are encouraging. The number of permanent school
    exclusions fell by 18 per cent between 1997 and 1999 so half way
    into a four-year programme. But the truancy rate has remained
    static since 1997. These two statistics clearly reveal the
    difficulty of the government’s task. Cutting school exclusions
    requires ministers to order school heads to comply; to reduce
    truancy requires changing the attitudes of young people and that is
    a far more difficult mission.

    Another target was to reduce the number of rough sleepers to
    “as near to zero as possible” but by at least two thirds by 2002.
    By June 2000 the numbers had reduced by a third – a year ahead of
    schedule.

    In addition, the number of teenage pregnancies has fallen, and
    the number of 16- to 18-year-olds not in education, training or
    employment fell by 15 per cent from 185,000 to 157,000 between 1998
    and 1999.

    On top of these four specific areas outlined in the SEU
    overview, swathes of new initiatives are underway. In January there
    were 128 Sure Start programmes covering 105,000 under-fours in
    deprived areas. By 2003/4 this will have increased to 500
    programmes covering 400,000 children. Nearly two million people
    relying on the state pension are better off than in 1997 because of
    the minimum income guarantee. Working parents with children on low
    incomes have gained financially. The New Deal for Communities is
    pumping money into deprived areas and action zones abound. However,
    nobody knows whether much of this activity is making much
    difference on the ground.

    The New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy
    Action Plan describes its long-term goals – to have lower
    worklessness, less crime; better health; better schools and better
    housing and physical environment in all the poorest neighbourhoods;
    and to narrow the gap between the most deprived areas and the rest
    of the country – as “unashamedly long-term”. It adds that
    quantifiable long-term targets for 10 to 20 years would only be set
    in the next two to three years.

    Perhaps this is the realistic approach. Social inclusion cannot
    be a single government term project: it is not just about bricks
    and mortar or merely increasing benefits but about changing
    attitudes and counteracting the poverty of aspiration.

    Lisa Harker, research director of the centre-left think tank,
    the Institute for Public Policy Research, welcomes the fact that
    the government has been prepared to set targets which are
    over-ambitious and which may never be achieved, placing itself
    under intense pressure. “These are things which will take a long
    time to put right,” she says.

    During a recent television debate, Home Office minister Paul
    Boateng forecast that tackling social exclusion was a 10-year
    project and the government was merely building the structures
    now.

    Detractors are few, their criticism limited primarily to the
    potential confusion and overlap of the many different regeneration
    initiatives or failures to reduce poverty. During the same
    TVdebate, Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on
    environment, transport, the regions and social justice, complained
    that there were too many schemes, with the result that regeneration
    budgets were massively underspent. The Conservative social security
    spokesperson David Willetts issued a vague warning that energy
    could be dissipated.

    Some successes claimed under the social exclusion banner have,
    however, been dismissed. Earlier this year a commons select
    committee stated that many of the 270,000 young people helped into
    employment under the New Deal for Young People would have found
    work themselves. Other critics point out that a young person only
    has to stay in a job for 13 weeks to be counted.

    Even supporters point to the difficulties faced by the
    government. The prime one, according to Harker, was the futile
    attempt to address inequality while maintaining the previous
    administration’s spending limits. Although the SEU prompted a
    rethink on policy and opened up some difficult discussion between
    different government departments, it struggles when it comes to
    actual implementation. For example, it took a long time to compel
    the Department of Health to pick up on its widely welcomed strategy
    on teenage pregnancies.

    Harker is also critical of the government’s approach. “We need
    a real approach to the distribution of wealth. If you are really to
    achieve equality in the UK, it’s got to be something that’s at the
    top of the political priority list. At the moment, the government
    is achieving change by the back door.”

    However, Alison West, chief executive of the Community
    Development Foundation, disagrees. There is nothing secretive about
    the government’s agenda, she claims. Few elements of the programme
    are sexy or media-friendly – “building sustainable communities”
    does not trip off the tongue easily. When chancellor Gordon Brown
    announces a new children’s fund to combat poverty, multiple
    headlines follow; when at the same time Hilary Armstrong, minister
    for local government and the regions, announces a new duty on local
    authorities to ensure co-ordinated planning of local services,
    there is a deadly silence.

    “They have done quite a clever juggling act,” West enthuses.
    “They are continuing with the plans from the Tory policies and
    carrying on with this for a couple of years, pouring money into
    urban regeneration. The difference is they are combining individual
    tax and benefit changes while continuing the area regeneration set
    underway by the previous government.”

    “Almost invisible to the naked eye” is how she describes the
    changes, but this is not a criticism. “I’m extremely impressed at
    the very long-term strategic approach they are taking. It’s not
    just ‘let’s throw money at it’.”

    Despite its success, the government cannot afford to be
    complacent. “One of the things that government must achieve is that
    it can never again allow poverty to slip off the agenda,” Harker
    says. “This is not guaranteed if there is a change of
    government.”

    Another caveat is contained in a study published by the Joseph
    Rowntree Foundation at the beginning of the year. Researchers
    concluded that “much practice in the planning and delivery of
    community care may not just be out of step with core government
    policies to promote social justice but may also reinforce
    exclusion”. It is clear that the battle against social exclusion
    has only just begun.

    Views from workers on the frontline

    Bhaggie Patel, project leader of the Barnardo’s Phoenix project
    in Bolton, which supports Asian women and children experiencing
    domestic violence:

    If you are looking at making a real difference, you have got to
    listen to the people. Far too often we have seen quangos set up
    which are not representative of those who are marginalised and
    excluded. I want to see those people invited and encouraged to
    participate at all levels.

    Simon Southworth, senior practitioner, Kent social services
    substance misuse team:

    The clients I work with continue to be excluded and penalised by
    society. All the legislation so far has been about “enforcing
    treatment” options. A radical look at the whole debate on drugs is
    required. I’d like Labour to show courage and set up a royal
    commission to cover all drug-related legislation.

    Rita McIntyre, outreach support worker in mental health for the
    Richmond Fellowship in Liverpool:

    People with mental health problems do feel excluded and are
    stigmatised. Social inclusion is all talk and hype. I’d like to see
    a more sympathetic approach and safety nets for people – not just
    those with mental health problems but also disabilities.

    Abdul Sattar, social worker with the Family Service Unit,
    Birmingham:

    The current government has introduced a number of measures to
    provide extra financial support to families to reduce poverty. They
    have also tried to promote work through the New Deal by giving
    parents the incentives to find work. Therefore, it is important for
    the next government to maintain and accelerate the momentum of
    policy changes so far.

    Julia Saunders, rehabilitation officer, RNIB visual impairment
    service, Solihull:

    Social inclusion is of particular importance to the blind and
    partially sighted people with whom I work. The government has done
    a lot for people with disabilities of working age – now it needs to
    give special attention to the increasing numbers of older people
    with sensory and compound disabilities.

    All our panel members are speaking in a personal
    capacity.


    On offer from the Lib Dems

    The Liberal Democrats believe that social exclusion results from
    a wide range of factors, including a lack of access to decent
    public services, concerns about personal safety, a poor quality
    environment, and often a lack of any sense of community or
    belonging.

    We disagree with the government’s top-down approach, which all
    too often believes that Whitehall knows best what works for local
    communities. Instead, governments need to enable local people to
    find local solutions.

    We believe all government policy initiatives should be assessed
    against a Quality of Life Index. This would set out the
    entitlements that a citizen might reasonably expect to enjoy in
    order to participate fully in society and have a decent quality of
    life. People in different regions and social groups would be asked
    to prioritise “basic entitlements”, and since no two communities
    have identical needs, separate lists would be constructed for each
    area, going down to a very local level. In this way, we would build
    up a comprehensive picture of social inclusion across Britain.
    Policy makers would be forced to consider the extent to which their
    policies met the directly expressed needs of specific communities
    far more than they do now.

    In addition to this project, the Liberal Democrats would make an
    immediate attack on the effects of social exclusion in all areas.
    We recently obtained figures revealing that 362,000 people in
    1999/2000 were refused a loan from the Social Fund, because they
    were seen as too poor to pay it back.

    The government’s tightening up of the eligibility rules means
    thousands more people are unable to afford essential items of
    furniture, clothing and children’s shoes – a shocking and
    unnecessary example of social exclusion in the 21st century. We
    propose a comprehensive reform of the current system and a gradual
    reintroduction of grants to assist the very poorest in society.

    We would launch an attack on policies and practices that lead to
    people being marginalised. For example, we would prevent utilities
    from charging more from people with pre-payment meters, and would
    ensure that free school meals were delivered in a way that would
    not stigmatise those who claim them. We support community economics
    schemes to help people without ready access to financial services
    and aim to reform the benefits system to ensure that young people
    are treated as equal citizens.

    Steve Webb is Liberal Democrat social security
    spokesperson.


    … more views from the frontline

    Abdul Sattar, social worker with the Family Service Unit,
    Birmingham:

    The current government has introduced a number of measures to
    provide extra financial support to families to reduce poverty. They
    have also tried to promote work through the New Deal by giving
    parents the incentives to find work. Therefore, it is important for
    the next government to maintain and accelerate the momentum of
    policy changes so far.

    Julia Saunders, rehabilitation officer, RNIB visual impairment
    service, Solihull:

    Social inclusion is of particular importance to the blind and
    partially sighted people with whom I work. The government has done
    a lot for people with disabilities of working age – now it needs to
    give special attention to the increasing numbers of older people
    with sensory and compound disabilities.

    All our panel members are speaking in a personal
    capacity.


    On offer from the Conservatives

    Labour has made a great deal of its commitment to reduce poverty
    and to tackle social exclusion. There has been a stream of
    well-meaning – though often ineffective – anti-poverty initiatives.
    And although it is a reflection of the government’s timidity in
    other areas, the most important structural change in central
    government since 1997 has been the establishment of the Social
    Exclusion Unit. It is instructive to compare the promises, the
    announcements, and the reforms to the latest evidence on the extent
    of poverty.

    Labour’s most famous pledge is Tony Blair’s ambitious commitment
    in 1999 to halve child poverty by 2020. Two years later there is
    one thing that is abundantly clear and on which the Department of
    Social Security, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Joseph
    Rowntree Foundation are all agreed.

    There is not a single official statistic which shows that the
    number of people living in poverty has reduced since 1997. The most
    recent annual report of the government’s record by the Joseph
    Rowntree Foundation concluded: “The number of children in low
    income households shows no sign of decreasing, and children
    continue to be more likely than adults to live in low income
    households.”

    One of the main causes of this failure is the desire of
    ministers for newspaper headlines boasting of a new pilot scheme
    here or a new action zone there. This has taken the focus away from
    what works on the ground. In the words of the government’s own
    performance and innovation unit, “there are too many government
    initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too
    much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering”.
    The House of Commons library has shown that the number of schemes
    in a particular area is entirely unrelated to the level of
    deprivation.

    Another problem is that, even where the schemes work, there is
    no guarantee of continued funding. Decent people who are trying to
    help deliver high quality public services are forced to spend all
    their time bidding for penny packets of money for some special
    scheme. There is a good case for old-fashioned core funding aimed
    at local people running local schemes.

    There are smaller changes that could help too. The benefits
    system has been constantly altered throughout this parliament but
    the changes have been largely presentational and they have served
    to confuse claimants

    We recognise that there are no quick-fix solutions. But a
    combination of proper core-funding for local programmes and a
    simpler benefits system with higher take-up rates would go a long
    way to helping those most in need. There is also scope at a
    national level to provide increased support to vulnerable groups,
    such as those Incapacity Benefit claimants who want to work but who
    are effectively barred from doing so because they have not been
    offered help with their rehabilitation.

    David Willetts is shadow social security
    secretary.

    More from Community Care

    Comments are closed.